There is no escape from the truth: we live in a suffering world. No matter how hard we try to deny it, the reality of suffering will not go away. There is no place to hide, no shelter from its reach. To live is to suffer.

Frederick Schmidt puts it plainly: “Everyone has suffered, is suffering, or will suffer; and everyone knows someone who has, who is, or who will.”[1] Though we may escape tragedy for the moment, it will inevitably touch us. If we live long enough, we will eventually lose our health, our family, our friends, and life itself. Until the time that these precious gifts are plucked from our grasp, we will continue to experience the normal physical, mental, and emotional pains that accompany life in a groaning creation.

How does all this suffering reflect upon God? Where is God during times of tragedy? How is God related to the endless flood of misery, heartache, and despair? Does God have any interest in human suffering? Why does God allow these things to occur?

The questions above reflect our attempts to wrestle with “the problem of evil.”[2] The problem of evil capitalizes on the presence of evil within God’s creation. How can God be both good and all-powerful and yet evil continue to exist? Since it is obvious that evil does exist, then God’s existence – which is far less obvious, especially during times of intense suffering – must be called into question. If God does exist at all, then God must not be good or all-powerful.

A Problem for Believers Only

From the beginning of our reflection, we must affirm that the problem of evil is only a problem for theists. Only those who believe in God must wrestle with harmonizing God’s goodness and sovereignty with the reality of evil and suffering. “There is little or no reason for an atheist to imagine a world without suffering, or to experience a world marked by suffering as somehow problematic or contradictory.”[3] Technically, the problem of evil does not exist for atheists since they have no reason to harmonize God’s existence with the reality of evil precisely because they do not believe God exists in the first place. The only reason an atheist would have to put forward the problem of evil is to undermine theism and prop up atheism. Evil and suffering are not necessarily problems for the atheist and his worldview – they are simply natural expressions of the way things are in the world in which we live.

Our approach to the problem of evil will be completely different than that of the atheist or radical skeptic. Our attempts to grapple with the problem of evil will be an exercise in “faith seeking understanding.” According to St. Augustine, “There are those things that are first believed and afterward understood.” We will begin from a stance of faith and trust. We will wrestle with God as believers. This will not make our task easier. Indeed, it will increase our struggles. We must never forget that the very problem of evil arises from our initial embrace and affirmation of a good and sovereign God. In other words, the problem of evil arises from faith and only in faith can we approach it.

In lieu of our task, it is important to remember that, in regard to reconciling our faith with experience, “[f]aith will, more than ever, remain what it always was: a leap beyond experience.”[4] Because faith always surpasses experience, it is dangerous to define faith as “certainty” or to limit faith to only that which one has already experienced. The only way to apply faith to the problem of evil is to – by faith – rise above and beyond evil and seek the mind of God.

The Problem of “The Presence of Evil”

How can God be both good and all-powerful and yet evil continue to exist? One simple way to state the “problem of evil” is as follows:

1. If God is good, he would destroy evil.
2. If God is all-powerful, he could destroy evil.
3. But evil is not destroyed.
4. Hence, there is no God.

Numerous attempts have been made to eliminate the problem of evil by weakening one of the propositions – either by denying God’s goodness, limiting God’s power, or denying the reality of evil.

Some have argued that God is not good. Evil exists because an all-powerful God does not have the moral decency to use his powers for good. God is capricious, whimsical, and arbitrary in his dealings with humanity. He is not ultimately concerned with good or evil. He remains distant, aloof, remote, and unaffected by evil and suffering. He simply doesn’t care about the human condition. It is not his problem.

Others have argued that God is not all-powerful. God would like to eliminate evil but he simply cannot. The power of evil is too great for even God to overcome. Evil constantly thwarts God’s intentions for humanity. This is the reason evil is so powerfully experienced. God wishes it otherwise, but even God cannot make his wish come true.

Finally, others have concluded that the problem is not with God, but with our perception of reality. Evil is not real. We simply perceive things to be evil, but they are really just nature in action. Pain, grief, disease, and death are all normal. Human longings for something more are simply wishful flights of fancy fueled by religious lies and delusions.

Evil is not only denied by advocates of naturalistic materialism; evil can also be denied through religion. Mary Baker Eddy’s Christian Science movement denies the reality of evil. Pantheistic monism, the philosophy that is the basis for most new age spiritualities, teaches that everything is one – including good and evil. Ultimately, good and evil are the same thing – which is to say that neither good nor evil truly exist. The duality we perceive between the two is simply our own projection upon reality. One day, upon enlightenment, we will discover the illusion of duality and the reality of “the One.”

One can deny the reality of evil, but it is much harder to deny the reality of pain. No matter how much we try to hide behind our philosophical systems and religious beliefs, the experience of pain jolts us back to reality. Pain exists, even if evil doesn’t.

Since pain is so undeniably real in this world – and pain is so easily attributed to evil – it is easier to deny God’s existence then it is to deny the reality of evil. Evil seems so obviously real. God, however, doesn’t. The presence of evil and the reality of pain call into question the existence of a good and powerful God. If God truly exists, then he must not be either good or powerful – or both.

But what if the presence of evil is not in conflict with the goodness or power of God? What if God’s goodness, God’s omnipotence, and the reality of evil can be found to exist together? In other words, what if the three propositions of the problem of evil are not mutual exclusive or contradictory? Perhaps all three can be harmonized.

Is there an example of the co-existence of evil, God’s goodness, and God’s power? Although numerous examples could be given, the supreme example is the cross of Jesus Christ.

At the cross, the reality of evil is fully manifested. Representatives from all humanity (described most broadly as Jew and Gentile) gather together to oppose God’s Son. Though completely innocent, Jesus is betrayed, condemned, scourged, tortured, and murdered. The pure and undefiled Son of God encounters injustice from every angle, culminating in his death. A friend’s abuse of trust, the state’s abuse of justice, the church’s abuse of religion, and humanity’s abuse of humanity are all evidenced at the cross of Christ.

Though evil so fully pervades the scene, God’s sovereign power is evidenced. God does not cause the evil; it is brought forth by the free choices of immoral human beings. The evil acts remain just that – utterly evil. Yet God in his great wisdom is able to use evil to accomplish his sovereign purpose of bringing salvation to all. At the very moment when it appears that God’s purpose is fully frustrated by human evil, God’s purpose is being fully accomplished (Acts 2:23; 4:27-28). In the midst of human suffering, God is at work bringing redemption. God’s sovereignty is demonstrated, not in his control of every aspect of the crucifixion, but in his use of the whole event to bring about good. No evil, no matter how great, can thwart God’s sovereign purpose.

In bringing forth salvation from the midst of great evil, God’s goodness is shown. God’s love is demonstrated to all, including his enemies. God demonstrates how willing he is to go to every extreme to put things right. He is willing to bear the full weight of suffering and evil, resulting in his death! This is the first and greatest truth concerning God’s saving work on the cross.

There is a great mystery to God’s purposes in this world. We cannot completely explain what God is doing. For this reason every attempt to justify God’s ways in relation to evil and suffering will always fall short of the mark. What we can demonstrate, however, is that the problem of the presence of evil in a world where a good and powerful God exists is not a problem. The presence of evil and the reality of God’s goodness and omnipotence are not at odds. They can co-exist together. The cross is proof of this. Furthermore, the cross demonstrates that God has done something about evil. The reverberations of this act echo throughout the cosmos and will culminate in the complete restoration of the world (cf. Colossians 1:15-20).

The Problem of “The Possibility of Evil”

There is a further problem related to sin and suffering. If God is all-knowing then God must have known prior to creation that humankind would fall into sin. God must have created all things with the full awareness of the possibility of sin, suffering, and evil. Why would God create with the full awareness of potential suffering? Couldn’t God have done something to prevent this from happening? And if not, why create in the first place?

James Emery White answers this question by comparing God’s act of creation to his relationship with his teenage daughter:

Some may say, “Well, if God knew how things would turn out, he should have never created us!” because everything from cancer to concentration camps isn’t worth it. Yet when we blithely say such things, we betray how little we know of true love. Yes, the freedom to choose that God gave each of us has resulted in heartache and even tragedy. It is tempting to say that everyone – including God – would have been better off never having to endure it. But that’s not the way love – real love, at least – works.

To remember this, I need only reflect on one of the most defining realities in my life: my own role as a father. As I write these words, my oldest daughter is beginning her freshman year in high school. And because of this fact, all summer I’ve been a wreck.

I thought sending her to her first birthday party was hard. She came home in tears because the birthday girl announced at the start of a game that “everyone can play but Rebecca.”

I thought leaving her at school for an entire day for the first time was hard. And then I learned that another child had purposefully tripped her on the playground.

I thought that pulling out splinters, or holding her through the night when she had a fever, was hard.

I thought that watching her experience the onset of puberty, and the painful awkwardness and insecurity of becoming a teenager, was hard.

Now send your first child to high school, where she can wound and be wounded in ways that were unthinkable the day you first held her in your arms. Then you’ll know hard.

But let me – the one who loves her more than anyone, the one who would lay down his life for her in an instant – tell you what has never entered my mind:

Never having her.

Never bringing her into the world.

Never going through life with her.

Even though she can reject me and tear out by heart by hurting herself as well as others, if someone were to say, “Why do you even bother?” my only reply would be, “Because she is my daughter.” And having known fathers who have endured far more anguish than I have, suffering through prodigal years, chronic illnesses, and even untimely death, I can say confidently that no matter the cost, the value of bringing our children into the world goes without question.[5]

God genuinely desires a personal relationship of mutual love with the people he has created. In order to make this kind of relationship possible, God has created us as free, responsible, moral beings. It is this very freedom that makes possible an authentic relationship with God. It is also this very freedom that makes evil possible. “God could not create free beings and guarantee that they would always use their freedom wisely.”[6] Compulsory good does not result in healthy moral development; [7] nor does compulsory love result in a healthy, thriving, personal relationship.  

God could have created a world where all human beings, like good pets, instinctively loved and followed his will without question. This would provide the illusion of a relationship but certainly not genuine love. God could have created a world where all human beings were programmed from the beginning to love him. But again, this would hardly be the kind of love we celebrate. Instead, it would be the cold, mechanical response of a robot. In short, God could have created in such a way that there would be no real risk of sin, suffering, and evil, but there would also be no real possibility of a genuine, loving, responsible, relationship.

Because God created us to personally experience and express love, we have the freedom to receive or reject love. Compulsory affection is hardly the basis for an authentic relationship of mutual love and delight. Love, by definition, cannot overpower, manipulate, force, or control. Love liberates rather than enslaves. It is freely given and freely received or it is not love at all. Forced love is rape.

The truth concerning our present situation seems to boil down to this: The world we live in is certainly not the “best world” but it is the “best of all possible worlds” in regard to providing an environment where real love can flourish. Even more, it leads to the “best world” where a true, living, thriving, growing, loving relationship with God and others can be fully realized!

God took a risk when he created this world – a world with great potential for good or evil. The pinnacle of God’s creation – the image-bearers named man and woman – held the key to whether good or evil would reign on this earth.[8] Created free, they possessed the capacity to either love or reject God. There was no guarantee that the first humans would use their freedom to love God. Their capacity to grow in intimacy with God was matched by their capacity to degenerate into a pale shadow of their former selves through rejecting God. In order for there to be a potential for an authentic loving relationship brought about through freely received love, there also had to be the potential for rejecting God’s love. Tragically, to reject God’s love is to run from the only source of life, happiness, and security that exists in this world, resulting in suffering, ruin, and death.

Can A Good Person Allow the Possibility of Suffering?

One final aspect of the problem of the possibility of evil must be addressed. Some assume that God can only be “good” if God not only alleviates all suffering but also all possibility of suffering. In other words, it is assumed that the mere possibility of suffering makes God guilty of being less-than-good.

But is this true? Must a person alleviate all suffering and all possibility of suffering in order to be perfectly good? Are there any situations where the possibility of suffering must be accepted in order to accomplish a greater good? Is it really true that any suffering whatsoever makes a situation so irredeemably bad that it cannot be justified? In short, is the “ultimate good” a complete lack of suffering or is it something more?

The assumption that a good person will always eliminate all the suffering it is possible to prevent is untenable. Such exacting standards concerning the complete removal of any possibility of suffering are not expected in normal life nor are they desirable. Philosopher C. Stephen Evans writes,

The truth is that there are times when a good person will allow suffering for the sake of some higher good. Parents, for example, do not want their children to suffer, and they do try to prevent such suffering. But they also do not want their children to remain infantile in their personalities, and they realize that the goal of growth may sometimes require that they allow their children to make their own mistakes and suffer accordingly.[9]

Evans expands his argument in a later book:

There are lots of evils that could be but are not prevented by good beings. If parents never allowed their teenage children to ride in automobiles, certain kinds of dangers the children are exposed to would be eliminated, and in the long run some evils that will occur would be prevented. No teenagers would be involved in road accidents. However, most people would not agree that parents have an obligation to adopt such a policy (though some might think it permissible). The problem of course is that the policy would eliminate some evils, but also eliminate many goods and probably create other evils as well. (In an emergency, for example, a child who was not allowed to ride in a car might not receive prompt medical care.) It is not correct, then, to say that good people will always eliminate any evils they can. What is more plausible is to say that a person will eliminate an evil except where eliminating that evil would prevent a greater good or create a greater evil.[10]

For a person to be good, must he or she alleviate all suffering and all possibility of suffering? The answer is clear: Not at all. It is quite possible that ultimate good ends exist that justify suffering and the possibility of suffering. If this is the case, then God cannot be accused of failing to be good simply because God created an environment wherein the possibility of evil existed. For the very environment that made evil possible is also the same environment necessary to make possible authentic expressions of good!

Rethinking Goodness

Most people assume that there is general agreement on what comprises “the good” when we argue over whether God is good. However, this is not the case. To state the most obvious contrast, theists and atheists (and practical atheists of all stripes – those who find little or no practical significance in the existence of God and live “as if” there is no God) do not agree on what goodness is.[11]

The nature of “the good” and what comprises “ultimate good” are rooted in one’s beliefs concerning the nature of reality, the existence of God, and humankind’s ultimate end. Our view of God impacts our morals – our understanding of “the good.” Although this is often neglected in discussions between believers and unbelievers concerning the problem of evil, we must remember that there is no religiously neutral basis from which to create a hierarchy of values that both theist and atheist can embrace.

The very standards by which we measure what does and what does not count as “good” depend upon the acceptance or rejection of an intrinsically religious hierarchization of values. Any attempt to erect a system of values upon a religiously neutral basis, common to believers and unbelievers, fails precisely in the area where theodicy matters most, namely in deciding what must count as definitive evil.[12]

With this in mind, we must accept the fact that theist and atheist will most certainly disagree concerning the definition of “good,” “evil,” and what constitutes “ultimate good.” As in all value systems, many means – good, evil, and everything in-between – can be justified by how they contribute to what is perceived as an ultimate good.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the “ultimate good” cannot simply be the alleviation of all suffering as well as the alleviation of all possibility of suffering. These are worthy in themselves but they are not positive goods. If all suffering was eliminated, the obvious question would arise: To what end? If one answers, freedom, the question immediately follows: Freedom for what?

God’s ultimate end does include the alleviation of suffering and all possibility of suffering (e.g., Revelation 21:3-4), but that is not the total picture. This end exists for the sake of furthering our personal and moral relationship with God. We are made free in order to depend more on God – to increase the intimacy of our love for God and others.[13]

Is freedom worth it? Is the ultimate good of an intimate, growing relationship with God worth the possibility of suffering? For the unbeliever, the answer is no. For the believer, the answer is a resounding yes.[14] The greater good of knowing God is worth all the suffering necessary. Indeed, the surpassing value of knowing God makes all preceding difficulties, trials, and sorrows pale in comparison (e.g., Rom 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:16-18; Phil. 3:8ff.).

The believer, not satisfied with exclusively immanent goods, may value an intimate sense of God’s presence, acquired through much pain and suffering, more highly than a satisfaction of immediate needs… In his evaluation of what constitutes unnecessary evil and what constitutes ultimate goodness, the believer often fundamentally disagrees with the nonbeliever.[15]

Thankfully, the demonstration of God’s goodness is not relegated to the end of time. Real knowledge of God does not begin in the future; it exists in the present. While intentionally bringing about ultimate good, God’s goodness is demonstrated in the present through his hesed (God’s faithful covenant love) and compassion (God’s sympathetic sharing in others’ sufferings). In spite of evil and suffering, God “continues to express goodness in a relentless resolve to nurture relationships.”[16] No amount of suffering and evil can thwart God’s ultimate good which is expressed in God’s hesed. Likewise, God’s compassion is expressed through the humiliation of the incarnation and suffering of the cross. In Christ God has fully entered into the depths of human suffering.

An awareness of God’s goodness to us expressed in hesed and compassion does not remove all questions related to evil and suffering, but it does give us confidence that we can trust a God who has drawn so close in Christ and the Spirit. God’s goodness demonstrated in his faithful covenant tenacity and full participation in our suffering in Christ is the reason we believe that God remains good in spite of our inability to always understand God’s ways.

As stated earlier, faith is always a leap beyond experience. And when it comes to faith in the midst of great suffering, this truth is even more obvious. We trust God in spite of, and not simply because of, our experience. We do this because we, as recipients of God’s covenant love and compassionate presence, have come to share C. Stephen Evans perspective, “If I have come to know God as good and loving, and have come to trust him, I will believe that God has reasons for allowing evil and suffering, even if I do not know what those reasons are or understand them if I do.”[17]

---

---

To listen to the audio message, right-click and "Save Target As"

• The Problem of Evil (Mp3 - 8.2 MB)

© Richard J. Vincent, 2005